According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin，the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago，at the end of the Pleistocene era，can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans，i.e.，the Paleoindians， who were ancestors of modern Native Americans. However，anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them.Nor were extinctions confined to large animals： small animals，plants，and insects disappeared，presumably not all through human consumption. Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene. Still，Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians，arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere.But，according to historian Richard White，even the attribution of secondary responsibility may not be supported by the evidence. White observes that Martin's thesis depends on coinciding dates for the arrival of humans and the decline of large animal species，and Krech，though aware that the dates are controversial，does not challenge them；yet recent archaeological discoveries are providing evidence that the date of human arrival was much earlier than 11,000 years ago. 　3. In the last sentence of the passage， the author refers to “recent archaeological discoveries” (lines 27-30) most probably in order to 　　(A) Refute White's suggestion that neither Martin nor Krech adequately account for Paleoindians' contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions 　　(B) Cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming 　　(C) Suggest that Martin's， Krech's， and White's theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions are all open to question 　　(D) Call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions 　　(E) Provide support for White's questioning of both Martin's and Krech's positions regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions 老师，我在做这道题的时候，首先定位到最后一句觉得没说什么重点，就有个yet转折，可能这是用来驳斥前面的某些观点的。所以看选项找有没有驳斥的意思的， 发现5个选项全都在驳斥。。。心里慌了往前找。再回去找的时候时间已到。我就随便选了个B（时间一到各种混乱），因为在做这篇文章之前，我大体看了下原文，记住了原文讲的是P反驳M，W反驳P。后来答案我也看明白了，我认为我做这道题的思路出现了偏差，我想问一下应该怎么修正。

请唐瑭老师答疑：这道题最后一句划定的范围是hunt和A数量的关系，BCD能够自己排除，A项说人口增加，我觉得人口增加不一定hunt就会增加再影响人口，所以无关，但E项，A在人少的场合被目击的次数多，不就代表A多了是因为那里人少，hunt肯定是人来完成的，人少就少有hunt。

请唐瑭老师答疑： 我的思路是：原文最后一句划定的范围是对于延误来说，天气等不可控因素是一部分，但可控因素是有明显下降的，大致就是延误的因素。可以排除BCE选项，A选项低估airline error的占比，而D项，不可控因素在上升，为什么A错误而D正确呢？谢谢老师！

请唐瑭老师答疑：请唐老师用他的思路讲一下这道题。谢谢老师！

请唐瑭老师答疑：还不太能够理解为什么选D选项，能讲下这道题嘛，想知道是不是从一开始思路就错了。谢谢老师！

请唐瑭老师答疑：这个题可以不用看原文，直接在题干中总结范围：suncrop追求less profit，C项中cattle ranching高税的profits会产生比其他工业的profits更高，而E项中，开展RT的成本要比开展CR的成本高，对profit来说中间还有一步推理

请徐小梅老师答疑：

1.问题1 一个数的余数问题额，怎么看他除以248395的余数他的余数是与他各个位数上的和加起来除以这几个数的余数相等么？ 2.在质因数分解中，为什么每个分解出的质数的幂+1相乘等于他质数的个数，能解释一下原理吗？

没有找到这个细节题在哪里，好像没有怎么理解文章的意思。文章是在讲biologist和historian的explanation的方式以及biologist是以historian explaination为基础，然后发现了一些漏洞吗？ 希望张老师回答一下🥺

请教一下小梅老师，在用间接法时 所有情况-相邻捆绑=两个I没有挨在一起的情况 我的笔记上写的所有情况的表达式是C25A33 但现在自己看不懂了，希望老师讲下为什么

这题E选项是对的，但consumers主语后面谓语动词为什么是一般现在时，整个句子不是过去式么？